Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 06, 2020

The classic view is that the pool of American voters is basically fixed: About 55 percent of eligible voters are likely to go to the polls, and the winner is determined by the 15 percent or so of "swing voters" who flit between the parties.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Both sides are tribal in the extreme. Political parties are a curse. The founding fathers we're universally against them.

#1 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-06 11:51 AM | Reply

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" en.wikipedia.org

Given the saturation of data, I mean we probably have 100x more data points on voters than we did a generation ago, it may be that previously unidentifiable patterns, which I would bet are rooted in identity politics, are increasingly evident.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-06 04:29 PM | Reply

Here's another voter that doesn't exist: the one who was supposedly influenced by Russian Facebook memes costing Hillary the election.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-07 12:57 AM | Reply

Oh --------... every time a republicl0wn leaves office in disgrace the whole party claims they are libertarians... and really didn't ascribe to all policies...wuss wuss wuss

Republicl0wns are ruled by cowardice.

#4 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-02-07 06:32 AM | Reply

There is a cohort in each party that would vote for the devil if it meant the opposing party would lose. But you don't have to be an angry cow with to know that.

#5 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-02-07 08:09 AM | Reply

"... every time a republicl0wn leaves office in disgrace the whole party claims they are libertarians... and really didn't ascribe to all policies...wuss wuss wuss.
Republicl0wns are ruled by cowardice."

I don't think that's accurate. What makes more sense to me is that their claims of this nature are taken as granted by Democrats, putting them off balance and more open to the notion of compromise. And it works every time, to Democrats' disadvantage. It's not cowardice, it's deception.

#6 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-07 08:11 AM | Reply

Might as well vote right now because everyone's mind is made up.
More "Explosive! Bombshells! only add to the white noise.
The hossheit that orange man bad so vote left was worn out a long time ago.

#7 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-02-07 08:34 AM | Reply

Here's another voter that doesn't exist: the one who was supposedly influenced by Russian Facebook memes costing Hillary the election.

#3 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Facts not in evidence.

Why are you so keen on lying all the time and acting as if reality didn't happen?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 09:19 AM | Reply

More "Explosive! Bombshells! only add to the white noise.
The hossheit that orange man bad so vote left was worn out a long time ago.

#7 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

You're right. At this point it is just noise.

Because what we know is bad enough that if you're not swayed by it you're not going to be swayed by anything.

Because your idiotic cultists who ignore it and show themselves to be pieces of schit by thinking it's funny that your corruption, hypocrisy and pettiness make other people angry or bitter.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 09:22 AM | Reply

If "swing voters" decided elections, the most repulsive candidate in American history would not have won.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 09:39 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

That statement makes zero logical sense.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 09:45 AM | Reply

It's kind of absurd to suggest that just a single group makes the decision for any election

And let's be honest, a swing builder in California or New York or Kansas for that matter have a little value and don't decide an election.

Many many voters in swing states decide presidential elections, if we are going to say a small single group decides elections.

IOW, it depends on where the swing voter lives.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-07 09:52 AM | Reply

Swing voter...not builder.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-07 09:53 AM | Reply

That statement makes zero logical sense.

Sure it does.

The notion of a "swing voter" is someone who has no allegiance to political parties, who is "undecided" ahead of time and is therefore "swung" based on who is running and what their campaigns look like.

If the most repulsive candidate in history (a self-admitted sex predator who mocks women for "bleeding from their wherever," ----- on gold star families, physically mocks retarded people on video, etc.) wasn't enough to "swing" people the other direction, then it seems highly unlikely that "swing voters" determine elections.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 10:05 AM | Reply

wasn't enough to "swing" people the other direction, then it seems highly unlikely that "swing voters" determine elections.

#14 | POSTED BY JOE

It doesn't make sense because you're acting as if Trump's election was in a vacuum.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 10:14 AM | Reply

That's true, I neglected to point out that his opponent was the email lady. Swing voters can be excused for electing the rapist.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 10:53 AM | Reply

Hillary and Trump were the two lowest polling candidates on record.

It really was giant douche vs turd sandwich.

Why else do you think there was 4-5 times the usual number of votes cast for third party candidates?

But be flippant as you'd like. It's undestandable considering you're demanding the Dems make many of the same mistakes again because you think Sanders will be different.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 11:23 AM | Reply

What should we call the Obama voters who did not vote for Hillary?

#18 | Posted by jdmeth at 2020-02-07 11:46 AM | Reply

It really was giant douche vs turd sandwich.

Hahaha. If you don't think Hillary was light years ahead of Trump in terms of palatability and that the notion of them being "equally bad" was nothing more than a media fabrication, i can't so anything but laugh.

you're demanding the Dems make many of the same mistakes again because you think Sanders will be different.

Which mistakes are those?

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 12:05 PM | Reply

Hahaha. If you don't think Hillary was light years ahead of Trump in terms of palatability and that the notion of them being "equally bad" was nothing more than a media fabrication, i can't so anything but laugh.

For me she was better (wouldn't say light years...), which is why I voted for her.

But overall they were the two lowest polling nominees on the record.

Which mistakes are those?

Undue deference to coastal states that are going to go Dem no matter what at the expense of middle states that will decide the election.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 12:56 PM | Reply

Undue deference to coastal states that are going to go Dem no matter what

Nominating Hillary was undue deference to coastal states? Who knew?

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 01:09 PM | Reply

In states like Wisconsin and Michigan, Sanders is the #2 candidate close behind Biden, whose candidacy might be fading. If you're anti-Sanders you probably don't care about neglecting midwesterners.

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 01:15 PM | Reply

Nominating Hillary was undue deference to coastal states? Who knew?

#21 | Posted by JOE

You don't remember the weight placed on her being female?

Nor the criticism she took for a lack of campaigning in critical swing states she lost like WI, MI and PA?

www.washingtonpost.com

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 01:23 PM | Reply

If you're anti-Sanders you probably don't care about neglecting midwesterners.

#22 | Posted by JOE

I'm thinking about the general election, not the closes door primaries.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 01:23 PM | Reply

You don't remember the weight placed on her being female?

Kind of a stretch there, buddy. Was the emphasis on Obama being black an "undue deference to coastal states?" It's a little more complex than that.

Fact is, centrists like Clinton do best in southern states that Dems have no chance of winning anyway. She was hardly a coastal candidate. I can't even believe someone as intelligent as you would suggest she is.

And strong primary contenders matter in the general. Enthusiasm generates turnout.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 01:29 PM | Reply

Undue deference to coastal states that are going to go Dem no matter what at the expense of middle states that will decide the election.

#20 | POSTED BY JPW

It's not that. It's not reconciling the differences between urban and rural. States with higher rural populations go Republican. Urban areas go Democrat even in red states.

The fight is currently over the suburbs.

Ironically, this is why Texas is turning purple. The urban areas are growing so fast that they are outweighing the deep red rural areas now.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-07 02:14 PM | Reply

Kind of a stretch there, buddy. Was the emphasis on Obama being black an "undue deference to coastal states?" It's a little more complex than that.

Not at all. Identity politics was a major part of her platform.

Obama isn't relevant because he didn't neglect the middle for the coasts.

Fact is, centrists like Clinton do best in southern states that Dems have no chance of winning anyway.

Are you ignoring the rust belt here because it's against your argument?

And strong primary contenders matter in the general. Enthusiasm generates turnout.

#25 | POSTED BY JOE

Turnout needs to be balanced between states that are close and states that are not.

Generating more turnout in CA, NY and VT at the expense of turnout in MI, PA and WI is what lost 2016.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 02:43 PM | Reply

#26 largely true but likely not all of it.

Look at shaded electoral maps. There's far more purple than red or blue, even in rural counties.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 02:44 PM | Reply

Here's another voter that doesn't exist: the one who was supposedly influenced by Russian Facebook memes costing Hillary the election.
#3 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

You're saying Andrea, a mattress doesn't actually exist.
That's a bold statement.
Got any proof?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 02:46 PM | Reply

Are you ignoring the rust belt here because it's against your argument?

You mean the rust belt that Bernie largely won in 2016 and is in 2nd today behind a candidate whose campaign is about to finish 4th in IA and NH? Or some other rust belt i'm unaware of?

Generating more turnout in CA, NY and VT at the expense of turnout in MI, PA and WI is what lost 2016.

Bernie won WI and MI in 2016. Turnout was low in part because the preferred candidate of people in those states got ------.

Enthusiasm generates turnout. Bernie generates enthusiasm. Do the math. Bernie is not a repeat of 2016 mistakes no matter how badly you wish he was. He is the antithesis of 2016 mistakes.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 02:55 PM | Reply

#30 Corky was very, very good at not noticing Clinton's big wins were in Red states that weren't going to translate to Clinton wins in November.
The entire DNC was very good at that, as a matter of fact.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 02:58 PM | Reply

Snoofy was very, very good at not noticing that Bernie's wins were in undemocratic caucuses, that big crowds did not translate into votes in the Primary, and that he lost by a muliti-million vote landslide in an electorate that was much more liberal than the general election.

Bbros were very good at that, as a matte of fact.

They are also very good at assuming that there is no chance Bernie would have ever lost to Trump... and that Hillary's loss was a landslide sea change loss when in actuality it was 77, 000 votes in 3 Rust Belt states, about .04 percent of the vote.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-07 03:17 PM | Reply

"undemocratic caucuses"

What's undemocratic about caucuses, and even if they are undemocratic, but the various State Democratic Parties still want to have them, why shouldn't they?
Speaking of undemocratic, want to go to Superdelegates next, or is that kind of un-democracy fine with you?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 03:19 PM | Reply

"that big crowds did not translate into votes in the Primary,"

Hillary's small crowds did not translate into big votes either.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 03:20 PM | Reply

Bernie's wins were in undemocratic caucuses

Wisconsin doesn't hold a caucus. Michigan doesn't hold a caucus. What on earth are you talking about?

in actuality it was 77, 000 votes in 3 Rust Belt states, about .04 percent of the vote.

Any election against the most disgusting person ever to run for president should have been a landslide. "But she only lost by a little bit to the rapist who mocks retarded people" isn't a good look.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 03:32 PM | Reply

Corky is oh so desperate to convince anyone who will listen that the team was *this close* to a Super Bowl win and doesn't need a rebuild.

Add an edge rusher and speedy WR and dems are GUARANTEED a win in 2020.

#36 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-07 03:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- should have been

Is an internalized ideal, not an objective analysis of what voters might or might not do.

"undemocratic caucuses"

I'm going to take it that if that's all you could object to out of the points I made, then you had little objection to them.

why caucuses are undemocratic

www.google.com

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-07 03:44 PM | Reply

#36

There's really no requirement here for you to post when you have absolutely nothing to say. Which is most of the time.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-07 03:47 PM | Reply

#37 You don't have to explain why caucuses are undemocratic; i agree with that. I was asking why you claimed "Bernie's wins were in...caucuses" when most of his wins were not in caucuses and his wins in the most critical swing states were not caucuses. Are you having trouble reading?

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 03:56 PM | Reply

And you didn't respond to the second point either. And then you have the gall to tell me not to post. Nice projection. Maybe you should be a Trumper.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 03:57 PM | Reply

Beating a rapist who mocks the disabled is now just "an internalized ideal." My, how far we've fallen.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-07 03:58 PM | Reply

"In the 2016 Democratic nominating contest, 14 of the 50 states held caucuses instead of primaries. These contests are harder to access as they generally don't allow any early voting or absentee voting, and they require individuals to appear at a certain location at a certain hour on a certain day and spend hours there just to cast their vote. This disenfranchises the elderly, the disabled community, college students, active military, working class folks, parents with small children, and countless others." medium.com

^
That I can certainly agree with.
Saying Hillary sucked ---- at them because they were undemocratic as described, I cannot.
Caucus is a bellwether for how many people are actually excited enough about a candidate to overcome all those undemocratic obstacles.
Caucus is a litmus test for populism. Hillary failed. Now Biden is failing, and rather than acknowledge that failure, you excuse it because of the system, you hope that it doesn't matter, which is exactly what you did last time.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 03:58 PM | Reply

-Beating a rapist who mocks the disabled is now just "an internalized ideal." My, how far we've fallen.

You keep beating this drum so it must be very important to you. And that's fine but You're going to have to get over the reality that not everyone is as sensitive as you are regarding those antics.

I'm entrenched in a red area inside a red state.

People here don't necessarily like it he does things like that. They watch Fox News and they don't show that stuff very often.

What do they truly enjoy?????

Watching you piss and moan about it.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-02-07 04:49 PM | Reply

Well you're in the right state then, Eberly.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 05:11 PM | Reply

- Caucus is a litmus test for populism

For activism, ftnc.

- you excuse... system, you hope

You assign motivation.

Another lesson not learned from 2016 is that rwing populism and lwing populism are not the same voters.

People who assume that Bernie would have one have to assume they are.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-07 05:57 PM | Reply

- Caucus is a litmus test for populism

For activism, ftnc.

- you excuse... system, you hope

You assign motivation.

Another lesson not learned from 2016 is that rwing populism and lwing populism are not the same voters.

People who assume that Bernie would have one have to assume they are.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-07 05:57 PM | Reply

Corky, I'll make you a bet.

Whoever draws the biggest crowds wins in November.

Do you know who would have won that bet in 2016?

Trump.

I expect the same "litmus test" to hold true in 2020.

If you don't, I would love to hear your so-called Path To Victory.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 06:59 PM | Reply

Early Iowa turnout signs point to lagging Democratic enthusiasm

CNN

#48 | Posted by Maverick at 2020-02-07 07:36 PM | Reply

" Early Iowa turnout signs point to lagging Democratic enthusiasm - CNN"

They're trying to discourage people and depress voter turnout. Low turnout always benefits more conservative candidates. This is as true for Democrats as it is Republicans.

#49 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-07 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#47

Campaign Mystery: Why Don't Bernie Sanders' Big Rallies Lead To Big Wins?

The Enthusiasm Gap May Be An Optical Illusion

Since last summer, when Sanders' huge rallies got him noticed by the national media, there's been a lot of discussion of an "enthusiasm gap" between Sanders and Clinton.

But in a recent Gallup poll, it was Clinton, not Sanders, who had the lead in enthusiasm among supporters. Fifty-four percent of Clinton supporters said they were "extremely" or "very enthusiastic" about their candidate, compared to 44 percent of Sanders' supporters.

www.npr.org

I can only guess that Bernie out-rallied Mayor Pete in Iowa and NH.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-07 08:29 PM | Reply

Campaign Mystery: Why Don't Bernie Sanders' Big Rallies Lead To Big Wins?

Because there are 10 candidates still in the race.

Because the same people who voted for Warren or Yang or Gabbard will eventually end up voting for Bernie.

Take a deep breath. It's still early in the primaries.

#51 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-07 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I can only guess that Bernie out-rallied Mayor Pete in Iowa and NH."

I can only guess you don't see a clear path to victory, and you're too ----------- to take my bet.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-07 11:22 PM | Reply

You mean the rust belt that Bernie largely won in 2016 and is in 2nd today behind a candidate whose campaign is about to finish 4th in IA and NH? Or some other rust belt i'm unaware of?

You're still stuck in the myopic world of the primaries.

Who cares if you win the majority of your party's voters if you're kryptonite to unaffiliated or independent voters.

Worse if you offer zero chance of on the fence opposing voters getting on board.

Bernie won WI and MI in 2016. Turnout was low in part because the preferred candidate of people in those states got ------.

LOL

For MI, total Dem primary votes were about 1.2 million. Hillary received 2.268 million votes in the general.

For WI there was just over 1 million Dem primary votes in total. Hillary received 1.382 million votes in the general.

Bernie lost PA and OH.

Sounds like "Progressives" gave us Trump by being whiny little bitches.

Enthusiasm generates turnout. Bernie generates enthusiasm. Do the math.

I am, numbnuts.

The full equation needs to account for enthusiasm generated for and against a candidate.

I see the against portion beating the for portion in the general.

You seem to be consistently stuck in a vacuum of your own making.

Bernie is not a repeat of 2016 mistakes no matter how badly you wish he was. He is the antithesis of 2016 mistakes.

#30 | POSTED BY JOE

I don't want him to be. The LAST thing I want is four more years of Trump.

But I also don't think that that means I need to be absolutely loyal to every candidate. I don't think Bernie is the best shot at winning the EC.

And that's the primary mistake I see being repeated. You idiots are blinded by your idealism and that's allowing you to play the game by the incorrect rules.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 11:26 PM | Reply

Take a deep breath. It's still early in the primaries.

#51 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Thank you.

Finally some sanity from the further left.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-07 11:26 PM | Reply

#53 | POSTED BY JPW

That was a seriously strong post. Nicely done.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-08 12:43 AM | Reply

Yeah we'll sometimes I decide to be generous and cast my pearls before swine LOL :)

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-08 01:23 AM | Reply

- I would love to hear your so-called Path To Victory.

Support and vote for the Dem candidate whomever that may be; don't sit home or throw away one's vote because one's primary candidate didn't win.

Had that happened in 2016, Trump would have lost no matter the size of his rallies... had it happened by even a fraction of a percent in 3 states, he would have lost.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-08 05:39 PM | Reply

- I would love to hear your so-called Path To Victory.
Support and vote for the Dem candidate whomever that may be; don't sit home or throw away one's vote because one's primary candidate didn't win.
Had that happened in 2016, Trump would have lost no matter the size of his rallies... had it happened by even a fraction of a percent in 3 states, he would have lost.
POSTED BY CORKY AT 2020-02-08 05:39 PM | REPLY

Still peddling that hornswoggle huh??

#58 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-02-08 05:42 PM | Reply

Still no argument, obviously.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-08 05:45 PM | Reply

"Donald Trump owes his victory in the Electoral College to three states he won by the smallest number of votes: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So it's fair to say that the 2016 presidential election was decided by about 77,000 votes out of than 136 million ballots cast.

According to the final tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes). If Clinton had won all three states, she would have won the Electoral College 278 to 260."

www.washingtonexaminer.com

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-08 05:58 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort