The elections are short, but we’ve known the candidates a long time. De Dluca was elected leader shortly before the election and no one knew who he was and he totally tanked.
Doug got in to replace Patrick Brown pretty late in the game after CTV reported that Brown was a creep with young (but later turned out to be legal age) women at bars in Barrie and a snap leadership race stuck us with him. I just looked it up again and he was leader for about three months before the Provincial election, Del Duca was around for two years.
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?
that was the original statement Flying Squid was replying to before you joined in the thread, Squid just didn’t seem to notice that you’re not the same commenter.
I think there may be some confusion on Flying Squid’s part about who they’re questioning. I believe (and hopefully, I’m reading this correctly) Flying Squid is looking for clarification from Bostonbananarama and you just happened to chime in with a related point? This Crowdstrike B.S. got e’erybody fucked up on no-change Friday.
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
Yea, pretty much every election up here in Canada.
I’m amazed that Americans think four months “is like literally no time”.
It’d take an ad spend but the DNC could name recognition pretty much anyone at this point.
The elections are short, but we’ve known the candidates a long time. De Dluca was elected leader shortly before the election and no one knew who he was and he totally tanked.
*see, I even got his name wrong. Del Duca.
Doug got in to replace Patrick Brown pretty late in the game after CTV reported that Brown was a creep with young (but later turned out to be legal age) women at bars in Barrie and a snap leadership race stuck us with him. I just looked it up again and he was leader for about three months before the Provincial election, Del Duca was around for two years.
Name recognition with Doug was incredibly high. To this day, who the hell is Del Duca anyway?
Mayor of Vaughan but I get your point
You don’t elect a chief executive in Canada the way we do in the U.S.
You can’t compare a parliamentary election to our constitutional presidential republic’s elections.
*4 weeks, bud
The convention is in 4 weeks. Mail-in-ballots get sent out at the end of September.
There’s a lot of misinformation being shared due to the lack of proper context. Yes, the election is in November but it’s not that simple
Honestly, if we ever think something is simple, we should pretty much assume we don’t know wtf we’re talking about
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?
can you show an election where somebody in the polling position of biden has come back to win it?
non-us election cycles are shorter than the time that’s left i don’t think it’s an impossible hurdle
I don’t have to show evidence for a claim I did not make.
You, however, made this claim: it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.
Can you back it up with evidence or not?
the commenter you’re replying to now isn’t the one who made that claim, and for some reason they aren’t speaking up to clarify that about themselves.
Maybe they flushed and went back to work. Or sleep. Or are back country camping.
😅
Sorry for having other things going on, it won’t happen again.
i think it’s weird that you think you’re allowed to infer claims from my position but that i’m not allowed to infer claims from yours
I didn’t infer anything. You made a direct claim that you aren’t backing up. I quoted it. I have made no claims.
you didn’t quote anything?
please could you quote the exact words you believe i used to express “it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.”?
thank you
that was the original statement Flying Squid was replying to before you joined in the thread, Squid just didn’t seem to notice that you’re not the same commenter.
Fuck off, sea lion.
i feel like i’m taking crazy pills
somebody tells me they’ve quoted my words, and they haven’t, and i ask them to clarify, and i’m sealioning?
no, they’re just full of shit
what are you talking about?
I think there may be some confusion on Flying Squid’s part about who they’re questioning. I believe (and hopefully, I’m reading this correctly) Flying Squid is looking for clarification from Bostonbananarama and you just happened to chime in with a related point? This Crowdstrike B.S. got e’erybody fucked up on no-change Friday.
2016
Its not, last time we did this Reagan won by a fucking landslide. I am very nervous but voting D.
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
https://www.rawstory.com/biden-nomination/
So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?
What I mean is this is probably a bad idea. We did something similar and it was bad. But go for it. I’m voting D no matter who.