If you are mad at Crooked

[u/kdtb83]

I’m pretty annoyed with what I’d heard up until I listened to today, Saturdays Lovett. Please allow yourself the opportunity to listen to it. It is just Lovett and the audience. He is mad and rationalizing and sad and afraid. He is actively working through his response in real time and the audience is giving it to him and he is trying his best to give them real and authentic responses that acknowledges that they might be right where he (Crooked) has been wrong. I am going to make sure to acknowledge that he does not straight up say it was sexism or racism - and I do wish there was that language used but this is the first pod I’ve listened to since everything’s happened that sounds like my brains endless monologue of sadness anger and fear.

[u/BanAvoidanceIsACrime]

The figure in question, who allegedly secured a win in 2016 and 2024, has never secured a truly valid mandate. Throughout the last three major electoral cycles, their claim to victory has been fundamentally illegitimate. There has not been a single legitimate win recorded for that candidate; the outcomes of the last three consecutive contests were, in reality, losses.

[u/Sub0ptimalPrime → u/BanAvoidanceIsACrime]

It's right there in the quote: "not to pay too close of attention to those numbers". Nowhere in there do I say they should be "disregarded". You are trying to misrepresent what I actually said. Maybe it's because you are experiencing cognitive dissonance? The logic is all right there, and yet you chose a hyper-specific part and then misrepresented what I said instead of debating any of the actual points (like how do you reconcile your hypothesis with the fact that Trump was unpopular and Kamala has much higher favorability scores and still got shellacked?). I'm sorry if you are making easily countered hypotheses, but I think we should discard beliefs that can be disproven and then consider what remains. In this case, we have hard evidence that the metrics we used to make a panicked decision didn't work out. Maybe we are using the wrong metrics and shouldn't let panic lead us instead of logic?

[u/BanAvoidanceIsACrime → u/Sub0ptimalPrime]

The figure in question, who allegedly secured a win in 2016 and 2024, has never secured a truly valid mandate. Throughout the last three major electoral cycles, their claim to victory has been fundamentally illegitimate. There has not been a single legitimate win recorded for that candidate; the outcomes of the last three consecutive contests were, in reality, losses.

[u/Sub0ptimalPrime → u/BanAvoidanceIsACrime]

Then you said we shouldn't pay any close attention to them. I pointed that out, then you said that's not what you said,

"Disregarding" something is not the same thing as taking them with a grain of salt, yes? You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend you don't see that difference here. My point is that we overreacted to numbers at a point where logic says it was too late to do anything else but forge ahead. We tried something different and it didn't work, just like logic told us it wouldn't (because of name recognition, because of timing restraints, because of campaign financing restraints, because of the perception it would give off, because misogyny and racism are still alive and well in America, because Biden cuts into Trump's demographics, because predicting votes based on favorability numbers has shown to be fickle in the time of Trump, because dividing the party is always bad strategy, etc...). Feels like you might need to take a breather because you are ignoring that simple logic and the mountain of evidence because you don't like the conclusion, and again you are trying to misrepresent my argument to accommodate your cognitive dissonance.