Can we please stop glorifying primary losers?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:53:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Can we please stop glorifying primary losers?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Can we please stop glorifying primary losers?  (Read 1356 times)
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 02, 2018, 02:33:19 AM »

In particular, the two annoying suppositions that Sanders would've beaten Trump and that Kasich would've done much better against Hillary than Trump did.

It is very unlikely that a loser in the primary would've done better in the GE than the eventual nominee, and there is one big reason why this is true. The fact is that it is much, MUCH harder to win a primary than it is to win a GE. You have to battle members of your own party, which requires much more nuance than battling the sworn enemy. Also, a primary is rarely a binary contest, which means you have to siphon votes from multiple challengers. Finally, primaries are much more complicated than GE's, and require a lot more strategy in terms of timing and delegate math.

Winning a presidential primary in and of itself puts you on a much higher plane than any of your challengers, and it is foolish to think that an also-ran in such a contest would have the gumption to defeat the nominee on the other side.

Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2018, 02:40:04 AM »

LMAO

So Humphrey would have done worse than McGovern in 72

Hart would have done worse then Mondale in 84

Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2018, 04:14:03 PM »

It's as if OP is talking about serial killers or something.
Logged
loganzombieoftime
Rookie
**
Posts: 47
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2018, 07:43:19 PM »

A primary forces one to appeal to that party rather than the general population.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2018, 05:05:42 AM »

In particular, the two annoying suppositions that Sanders would've beaten Trump and that Kasich would've done much better against Hillary than Trump did.

It is very unlikely that a loser in the primary would've done better in the GE than the eventual nominee, and there is one big reason why this is true. The fact is that it is much, MUCH harder to win a primary than it is to win a GE. You have to battle members of your own party, which requires much more nuance than battling the sworn enemy. Also, a primary is rarely a binary contest, which means you have to siphon votes from multiple challengers. Finally, primaries are much more complicated than GE's, and require a lot more strategy in terms of timing and delegate math.

Winning a presidential primary in and of itself puts you on a much higher plane than any of your challengers, and it is foolish to think that an also-ran in such a contest would have the gumption to defeat the nominee on the other side.

Would Ed Muskie or HHH have lost 49 states in 1972?

Would Fritz Hollings or John Glenn have lost 49 states in 1984?

Would the 1988 Al Gore have carried at least SOME Southern states and been more competitive in 1988?

Presidential primaries are ideologically driven.  Presidential General elections are driven by the ability to win a small number of folks who are moderate swing voters, while holding on to your base.  The primary process also does not need to be won with a majority of votes, while the General Election requires someone approaching a majority (high forties). 

Sanders, I would say, is an unusual case.  His polling was what it was, and his appeal to certain white working class voters in primaries was remarkable.  He appealed to these voters in areas where the left and right intersected (trade, foreign involvements, big corporate bailouts).  The problem was that Donald Trump was the nominee, and many of those Sanders voters were folks for whom Trump would have been their favorite Republican, and they would have found themselves in greater agreement with the GOP on social issues.  A similar argument was made in 1972 when there was shown a degree of convergance on some issues between McGovern and Wallace primary voters.  This, of course, vanished quickly; Wallace Democrats voted heavily for Nixon in 1972, North and South. 
Logged
AtorBoltox
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,977


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2018, 05:07:59 AM »

While the primary loser may be a stronger GE candidate, there is no evidence that this is the case for Kasich
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2018, 06:01:43 AM »

#[inserthere]WouldHaveWon
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,547
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2018, 06:11:39 PM »

Really the issue is that we'll never know. The nominees were who they were, for any election. It's hindsight overwhelming peoples' sense of rationality in coping with a loss. It's always fun to fantasize about what could have been had x, y, and z been different but it's a fallacy in the end. Maybe some day we'll get a 'Rick and Morty' inter-dimensional travelling device and then we can see the alternatives for ourselves but until then we have to cope with our realities, no matter how preventable they may have been.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,583
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2018, 03:43:44 AM »

LOL, Dukakis was the weakest candidate in 1988 Democrats could nominate.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2018, 04:19:32 AM »

LOL, Dukakis was the weakest candidate in 1988 Democrats could nominate.

Jesse Jackson
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,583
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2018, 04:21:31 AM »

LOL, Dukakis was the weakest candidate in 1988 Democrats could nominate.

Jesse Jackson

At least one of the weakest Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.029 seconds with 11 queries.