Quote (Thor123422 @ 6 Mar 2020 19:43)
It's the unfortunate consequence of being a genuine candidate. If you tone it down it looks like you're selling out, if you keep going you alienate people who are scared of change, and the latter outweighs the former because that's just the consequences of a first-past-the-post voting system, people have to moderate their votes instead of voting for who they actually want.
How can you say that when the turnout patterns we have just seen on Super Tuesday indicate the exact opposite: Bernie's own turnout lacking and a lot of people from the other side turning out specifically to stop Bernie?
I get the point you two are making, just to make that clear. I just dont think it's as black and white as you suggest.
Quote (thesnipa @ 6 Mar 2020 19:43)
secondly, while it may not be realistic 85% non-voters is a LOT of room for upward movement. a LOT.
That's pure theory though. The U.S. has traditionally low turnout levels. In 2016, your presidential election had a turnout of 55%, and the 50% turnout you had in the 2018 midterms was considered skyhigh, midterms usually are in the 40 range.
So an overall turnout much higher than 30% is completely unrealistic for primary races in early March; and the realistic ceiling should be lower than that for low turnout demographics like millennials or latinos.
As I explained above, I believe that even 20% millennial turnout wouldnt have been enough for Bernie to clinch the nomination. And those 20% would be more than 1.5 times higher than the 13% that he got.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 6 2020 12:56pm