robert reich is floating "liz cheney " for president

I do not call myself a Republican, rather I call myself a Conservative. While I reliably vote for Republicans, I am not included in that 28%. The same can be said for a large percentage of people that call themselves Libertarians, Liberals, Progressives, etc. There are an awful lot of people that do not call themselves a member of a party that do in fact reliably vote for one side or the other.

As I said, I think that you are overstating the percent of people that have votes that could go either way. There is a reason that you never see Presidential votes that differ much from a 54-46 type split at maximum. If indeed 46% were up for grabs as you claim, you would see much larger swings in potential vote outcomes.

If you are going to pretend beyond any legitimate reality that Cheny could win the nomination, yes, there are definitely a significant amouint of Republicans that would NOT vote for her, probably with most of them simply not turning out to vote. It is very important for a Democrat or a Republican to have a strong turnout from their base. Cheney would most certainly NOT engender a large turnout from her base. There is nothing there to legitimately argue.

A 60-40 type split would NOT even come close to making up for what would be lacking from the base turnout.

While still unlikely, I could realistically envision such a scenario in the right situation.

 

Its not about what people call themselves, its about party registration, which is an indicators of how they vote.

It makes sense to me. Why would there be a bigger swing if both candidates are qualified?

That is your opinion, but Republicans do want their party to win, so they would not just let Dems win by not voting at all. After the elections they say "I held my nose and voted".

 

Which is a good thing.

Reagan was rescued by tRaitor tRump from being the worst president in history.

I could be catastrophically wrong, but she might just be what this Country needs to get back on the rails. Depending on who the Democratic candidate is, I wouldn't rule out my voting for her.

We need to get beyond Americans against Americans; she might be the person to do it.

There's a faction of tRaitor tRump supporters that will never be happy unless he's given another chance to destroy the Country. But Cheney might be the person to give real Republicans a win that wouldn't automatically trigger Democrats.

It could be "a good thing".

 

She going to run for the Democrat party? She'll have a better chance.

 

Until she tries to install herself as an unelected autocrat in flagrant violation of the Constitution, she won't be as authoritarian or fascist (your word) as Trump.

 

It is ABSOLUTELY about what people call themselves. I call myself a Conservative, hence I am NOT a Republican, yet it would be a cold day in hell before I ever voted for a Democrat. I am NOT registered as a Republican. There are a lot of Libertarians, Progressives, and Liberals that similarly are not registered as a party member of how they always vote.

What about this do you find so difficult to comprehend? This is not a partisan issue. Estimates of the true swing vote vary, but in all estimates it is FAR lower than 46% as you claim. A quick cursory glance at expert estimates goes from 6% to around 30%, with most being closer to 15%.
Just How Many Swing Voters Are There? | FiveThirtyEight

As I said, I think that you are overstating the percent of people that have votes that could go either way. Registered party members are not the only people that reliably vote one way or the other. Not by a long shot.

If 46% of the people were truly swing voters, there would absolutely be much larger swings. If you look at 2008 where there was a devastating recession where the party in power had basically no legitimate chance of winning, Mcain was a milquetoast candidiate that did not excite his base, and all of the momentum and charisma was with Obama, if there were truly 46% of the votes up for grabs, Obama would have won by far more than the reasonably close 53-47 that he did.

As I said, I think that you are way overstating the percent of people that have votes that could go either way.

Having a candidate that excites the base being important in order to drive the turnout necessary to win is NOT my opinion. That is a well-established fact. If you do not understand this idiomatic dynamic, quite frankly, you perhaps are not qualified to be having this debate.

 

there is a huge contingent of conservative "never trumpers" who would support her as a repub. not enough to win. certainly not enough to defeat dear leader in iowa (assuming he even allows primaries)

i don't see any possible traction among dems.

 

Is there a contignent? Sure. Huge? Not so much. Trump had 85% approval amongst Repoublicans, which leaves an absolute maximum that could potentially be never Trumpers at 15%. Thats hardly a winning coalition, even if against all common sense we were to conclude that she as merely a new house member garnered the vote of EVERY never Trumper for President.

GOP Polling Firm Finds Just 15 Percent of Republicans Hold Anti-Trump Views (newsweek.com)

 

It is what it is. Sorry if you find it hard to accept it.

You think Biden won because he excited people? Or Bush Sr, or "W"? They are pretty much the opposite of exciting people.

Biden beat him with those odds. Why? Independents.

 

-Indeed it is what it is, and what it is NOT is a situation where 46% of the electorate are swing voters as you have asserted. You are undoubtedly overestimating the percentage of the vote that could swing in either direction. The 538 link I provided backs up precisely what I have said on the subject. You have recited party registration numbers, but nobody knowledgeable tries to assert that every person not registered with a party is a swing voter. Your error is understandable, but make no mistake, it IS an error.

- Biden won because Trump brought was emotionally despised by the opposition which drove a huge anti-Trump turnout in combination with an ongoing crushing pandemic that much like a recession, makes it very difficult for an incumbent to win. Biden had almost nothing to do with it, and that particular election was about as atypical as an election comes.

 

[QUOTE="Pro_Line_FL, post: 1073532450, member: 79301/"

Biden beat him with those odds. Why? Independents.[/QUOTE]

You added more to your post after I hit the reply function....

Do not get confused. swing voters can and do ABSOLUTELY swing elections, however, our debate is whether or not 46% of the electorate are swing voters. The answer is an unequivocal NO!

Nobody claims that... except you of course.

 

Where did this 46% come from? I said 28% are registered Dems, 28% GOP and 40% are independents.

 

But, does he an 85% base, I don't think so. His base has been 1/3 consistently. That's 52% + 15% or 67% looking, hoping for a sane choice.

 

My bad. So 40% instead of 46% ( the remaining must be registered as Libertarian or Green party whom are people who most certainly are consistent in how they vote)... This changes nothing in this debate.

In no manner, shape, or form are 40% of the electorate swing voters. Party registration does not even begin to tell you the full story. There is nothing here to legitimately argue.

 

We were talking about Republicans specifically and what percentage of them are never Trumpers. I am not sure what you mean by saying an 85% base. I made no such claim about an 85% base.

 

It sounds like you are arguing with yourself. If you don't agree independents decide elections, then so be it.

 

At no point have I EVER said or even hinted that independents do not play a huge role in deciding elections. Of course they do. I have made my point very clear, and that is that 40% of the electorate are NOT swing voters. Yeesh.

Throwing out a strawman does not change the principles of this debate even slightly, nor does a person with a strong position in a debate resort to throwing out a strawman.

 

/thread

 

I said you are arguing with yourself, because you invented the argument that ALL independents are "swing voters", and then you argue against it. No one said they are ALL swing voters. THAT is a strawman argument.

IMO Liz Cheney would get a good chunk of independents, and practically all registered Republicans. People don't sit out just because they didn't get their #1 candidate. They hold their noses and vote, or vote for the lesser evil. That's how its been for a long time now.

 

What occurred was that I said that you are overestimating the number of people whose votes could go either way, and then in response you quoted the numbers of Dems, Repubs, and Independents and argued that "Its not about what people call themselves, its about party registration, which is an indicators of how they vote."

If you want to now pretend like you were never arguing that the stated number of independents means that is the number of votes that could go either way, I suppose you can try. Being that it is all there in black and white in a very short thread however, I am not sure that your deception will fool anyone. You had more than ample opportunity to express as much during this entire conversation, and especially when I provided you with the 538 link. If your claim is true and you never intended to say that it is the number of swing votes, you could have simply said so at any point but you did not.

At any rate, being that you now seem to be in agreement with me, I guess my job here is complete and my point has been made.

 

not sure 'sane' or 'conservative', is what many on the right want these days, Qcrazy seems to fit the bill for many

 

Yes, you succeeded in beating your strawman to death. Congrats!

 

Hmmm...When I said...."If indeed 46% were up for grabs as you claim, you would see much larger swings in potential vote outcomes."

Your response was not that you are not claiming that large of a number, rather it was..."It makes sense to me. Why would there be a bigger swing if both candidates are qualified?"


You are fooling no one. Other than perhaps yourself.

 

Fooling about what? Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you have 2 qualified candidates, then why should all (or most) independents rush to vote for one and not the other? It would make sense that it would be a tight election, with independent vote being split.

 

There is no reason to keep going around in circles. We have both had our say. Let the reader decide for themselves.