Quote (fender @ 4 Mar 2020 18:44)
maybe keep it down with definitive claims like 'wrong', or do i have to remind you that we're talking hypotheticals here? i get that you (want to) think that, and obviously i disagree, but i think your arguments are a bit biased (as i'm sure you think mine are), and i tried to explain why. again, we're NOT back in the day, obviously i'm aware of and agree on your diminishing returns point (in the future you really don't have to spell it out, just assume that such fundamental concepts are understood and calculated), but that does not really refute my point about his shockingly high numbers (just imagine dietmar hopp spending half a billion on ads in germany, expecting anyone would think he'd make a good chancellor and actually voting for him - would he, in your wildest dreams, get anywhere close to bloomberg's share?) considering his tiny stint any one-sided strategy.
i know that everyone except progressives tends to side with the 'well, it might not be pretty, but the system isn't THAT bad' narrative, especially if it confirms their personal opinion, but that doesn't mean this is true if you look at it somewhat objectively. i had hoped that as a fellow european you would be able to think a little more critically about it...
Again, I see your point, I understand your argument, and I dont argue against its inherent logic. What I'm arguing against is your premise that "Biden's results were shockingly high". Like I said: he ran against a vacuum and spent a fortune, and still didnt get any real traction. Thanks to his ads, he was omnipresent on the airwaves, and a lot of primary voters clearly thought that the field was shitty. Under those circumstances, getting to 10-16% is not really something to show for.
To prove these points, consider the following:
The Bloomberg voters are those who definitely wanted a moderate/centrist candidate, they were choosing between Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. The latter two didnt have the name recognition and national profile like Biden, and they didnt have the campaign infrastructure in the Super Tuesday states like Bloomberg, so only Bloomberg and Biden were viable on Super Tuesday for those "moderate lane or bust"-voters. The district by district vote shares of Biden and Bloomberg were highly positively correlated (see e.g. the analysis on 538), districts where Biden did well were also Bloomberg's strongest. Now, the only time when Bloomberg was really gaining ground were the 2-3 weeks between Iowa to Nevada when Biden looked super weak and like his campaign might be on death's door. As soon as Biden showed any life in Nevada, this trend got reversed, and when Biden started looking strong after SC, these voters immediately abandoned Bloomberg. Hence, my argument that he was only doing fine while he was running against a vacuum and spending a fortune, and that he didnt get real traction or support.
In most primaries, you want see such a vacuum like the one we had between Iowa and Nevada. Particularly not in the less polarized and politicized times you were talking about.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.