George W. Bush told Jim Clyburn he was “the savior” for endorsing Biden and helping beat Trump (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 10, 2024, 09:38:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  George W. Bush told Jim Clyburn he was “the savior” for endorsing Biden and helping beat Trump (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: George W. Bush told Jim Clyburn he was “the savior” for endorsing Biden and helping beat Trump  (Read 3608 times)
Non Swing Voter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,169


« on: January 20, 2021, 11:03:21 PM »

He can say he was "the savior," I really don't care.
But any help he gave, to defeat and remove the Orange Buffoon ... then I am 100% grateful.

This about the primary obviously. SC still voted for Trump.

The argument at hand here, of course, is that only Biden winning the primary would've resulted in Trump losing the general. You don't have to agree with that argument, but at least acknowledge that that's the argument that's being made.

Kerry, McCain, Romney, and Hillary were supposed to be electable and lost.
They were electable. You are confusing electable with unbeatable.

Electable means you have a pathway to winning 270 electoral votes. Kerry and Hillary did. McCain and Romney could have in another year. But being electable means you can still lose. No one is truly unbeatable unless your FDR in 1936 or Reagan in 1984.

Who is unelectable?  Rick Santorum in 2012. Micheal Bloomberg in 2020.

Trump 2016 was supposed to be unelectable. Anyways, the polls showed that Bernie was a strong general election candidate and Biden's win was overwhelming. It's one thing to admit that you prefer neoliberal Democrats. It's another thing to hide behind this bogus electable argument. We're talking about Bernie as the nominee, not some joke like Tim Ryan.

2016 is one thing, but there's no evidence to suggest Bernie would have done better than Biden this year. In fact there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is this? Bernie easily could have done a fair amount better than Biden. If we assume the worst case, he loses AZ and GA but still wins.

It's doubtful to me that Bernie would have done as well in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania.  He might have held on to Michigan given the overall margin there but I seriously question whether he would have won Pennsylvania.  Just look at how he did against Biden in big suburban areas in the primary.  I don't think Bernie would have won Lackawanna, Erie, or Northhampton.  So you're probably talking a net 20,000 vote loss there.  Easily another 50,000+ net loss in Pittsburgh + Philly suburbs.  

At the end of the day, Biden/Harris was the perfect ticket.  Biden cut into Trump's margins in several key rust belt areas and Harris probably helped juice up black turnout in cities and inner suburbs.  

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.