-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bernie was far from a perfect candidate, but he seems to have garnered the most enthusiasm.
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
Are you a mind reader or something? You'd have to be to know who was blaming who for what when none of that's been part of the discussion.
Stop trying to derail the conversation. Your attempts at trolling and baiting are painfully obvious.
I didn't try to assert that "Clinton voters were less "Loyal to the cause" than Bernie voters". That's a ridiculous inference you made. There is literally nothing in the short first post I made that even hints to such a broad assertion.
So don't hold me complicit in having to prove some ridiculous imaginary point you thought I made which I absolutely didn't.
The fact that you mentioned the Clinton to McCain statistic at all when you could have used any statstic from any election does "even hint" at that assertion. The only ways in which 2008 and 2016 are comparable are that Hillary was a candidate. The only times this statistic is brought up is when value judgements are made on Bernie supporters. It's "But Hillary--!!!" in it's very nature. And don't say "It's the second most recent Presidential campaign" either, you're forgetting Romney.
But that's okay. Everyone forgets Romney.
It's the most recent presidential election which actually had a contested primary, which is literally the entire point.
I'm not sure you remember but there was this guy called Obama, he was a democrat and incumbent president in 2012. Not much of a primary.
I edited this in in a version of the post you didn't see before you replied, so I'll just put it here again. "The only times this statistic is brought up is when value judgements are made on Bernie supporters. It's "But Hillary--!!!" in it's very nature." I'll add to that, every time I hear it mentioned there's always an implicit response claim about Hillary supporters in the tone of posts I see it in.
I don't think this is a statistic that can be mentioned in good faith because of the zeitgeist surrounding it. You can see it even in posts other than yours in this very thread. But hey, maybe that's just me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Your claims were disproven pages ago and you are flailing helplessly. Just stop it, it's embarrassing.
Slightly off topic:
I mean, if we take a look at the 2016 election/candidates (the small Democrat field, vs the very large (11?) Republican field), i can't say that i was a fan of any, really. Especially the end result. Like, this was the best we could do?
I think the party system should be gone, but i know i am in the minority.
I mean, if we take a look at the 2016 election/candidates (the small Democrat field, vs the very large (11?) Republican field), i can't say that i was a fan of any, really. Especially the end result. Like, this was the best we could do?
I think the party system should be gone, but i know i am in the minority.
Because Joe Manchin isn't trying to become the Presidential nominee. Bernie's tonedeafness is an understandable reality of Vermont being hyper white and rural. But its not good on a national stage.
Russian bots aren't enthusiasm.
There's a reason his social media following didn't translate into primary votes.
There's a reason his social media following didn't translate into primary votes.
The party system largest exists as it is due to the First Past the Post voting system.
Changing this would require that the current two parties cede power, making it very unlikely.
There exists no national referendum system to enact any changes either so it's dependant on the issue being important enough that people vote for candidates supporting that change, and since it's never a top 10 issue, it just gets pushed every election.
I sometimes wonder if some type of national referendum should exist. It should require 60% of the vote, and any laws enacted by such method must pass constitutional checks.
In order of enforcement, Supreme Court > Referendums > Congress.
The Mueller investigation found that Russia meddled to aid Bernie. That's what I'm saying and that must be considered when talking about his support.
If you want to split hairs to derail the point, you can try but it doesn't change history.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/how-russian-social-media-effort-boosted-bernie#stream/0
Thank you.
Are you literally saying that facts can't be mentioned in "good faith" if people feel offended by their own interpretation of it? This post literally reads like some dystopian post-truth nightmare.
Which is exactly why guys were so in love with the idea of primarying people like Feinstein, Crowly, Schumer, and Pelosi.
Oh wait no, your side hated that. And your side shit talked Ocasio-Cortez the whole way for being a Democratic Socialist for months until she won. And then all of the sudden "Oh it's cool she's a Democratic Socialist! We meant that the entire time!"
I've supported the Feinstein, Cuomo, and Lipinski primaries. Primarying Pelosi would be ridiculous for the voters of her district and the caucus, Schumer isnt up this cycle, and literally no one was paying attention to Crowleys race. The only thing that people knew about Crowley is that late in the cyclr his financial disclosures showed massive spending on the primary. His internals didnt leak. No one polled the race exterally.
I had no opinion cause I didnt know who either of them were.
edit: The Lipinski/Newman was a pure ideology primary. It also did not break along Clinton/Sanders voting lines. These things are likely related. The "sides" you see are blinding you in how you're looking at this.
Last edited:
My thoughts are this: facts are facts. When I see someone post something which I know to be factually incorrect it I feel we all have a responsibility to correct it. That is what I did. I think it's especially important in cases like this, where people have a conclusion they've drawn from incorrect facts (Bernie supporters to Trump supporters are statistically significant).
All I did was correct someone who was incorrect and back it up with the relevant data. I find the notion that it's even possible for that to be "not in good faith" abhorrent, and if we treat the truth so disrespectfully all we're doing is going down the same fake news path the rights already been.
Here's the thing though. Isn't the full data set more stance-agnostic? You can now make your point without making a statement that has an implicit "But Hillary!" angle, by noting that the true 5% disrepancy isn't huge at all. Isn't that better for discussion and also a more accurate way of assessing the election, and prone to less argumentation?
Again. The "but Hillary" angle is something you inferred and not something I said.
Can you explain to me what this tonedeafness is that he has that Clinton doesn't?
Are there any specific policies you wanted him to push for that Clinton did, or is this literally just an argument about tone?
It's something that is contextual to your statement because it's a party line for the post-election Bernie base, which is prone to resorting to "But Hillary" arguments even if you aren't. My point is that it doesn't matter if you didn't outwardly say it. That's what implicit means. I'm trying to argue for relying on a less partisan statistic so you don't invoke the context of your argument.
And this how I know you're lying:
1. Schumer didn't have a primary this year and no one was talking about him in 2016. In 2016 you didn't know who the fuck Schumer was.
2. People on here have been actively hoping Feinstein loses her re-election campaign to de Leon since he announced and I can provide the receipts. Moreover, California e
elections don't work in such a way that Feinstein was likely to be 'primaried', since California is a jungle primary
3. Searching the board, there isn't a positive Joe Crowley post to be found prior to his defeat Tuesday
4. There are 8 posts about Cortez on this board prior to Tuesday, all of them positive.
If you're gonna be a fucking liar, then learn to tell better lies.
I'm talking about the liberal ecosystem that's extremely anti-Bernie to this day, mostly twitter localized but establishment democrat supporters here are definitely in alignment with them. I wasn't talking about Schumer having a race in specific, so much as the idea of primarying representatives and senators from the most progressive states who are at liberty to be far more progressive with no blowblack. And yes, on here and elsewhere establishment dems and people like you that support them have been absolutely reacted negatively towards the broad idea of primarying any democratic candidate.
But go ahead and call me a "fucking liar".
Hillary already did by 2.5 million votes.
She just won an election in a shithole country filled with people who don't understand their own system, apparently.
User banned (5 days): needless hostility, previous infractions for similar behaviour
You're a fucking liar.
It's okay. I know what you mean, along with lots of other people. This guy's only joy in life is being as rude as possible to people on here. Been doing it all evening.
I imagine people like Sanders because he very much has an aura of "authenticity" him.
Doesn't mean he's right; he's full of shit on NAFTA being the reason manufacturing is declining. But perhaps people like him for not speaking as if he's talking through a corporate donor filter, like some Republicans, such as Marco Rubio, frequently appear to do.
Too bad he's as old as he is. That's honestly the obstacle for me wanting to support a potential 2020 run. He'll be in his 80s once the 2020s kick in.
Doesn't mean he's right; he's full of shit on NAFTA being the reason manufacturing is declining. But perhaps people like him for not speaking as if he's talking through a corporate donor filter, like some Republicans, such as Marco Rubio, frequently appear to do.
Too bad he's as old as he is. That's honestly the obstacle for me wanting to support a potential 2020 run. He'll be in his 80s once the 2020s kick in.
I can go to PM on this as itll be long.
It is not about "tone", its about a long number of actions and decisions that can be charitably called "tonedeaf" at best.
Bernie will have some trouble getting past his history on immigration without being labeled a flip-flopper, given that he was decrying open borders as a Koch brothers plot in 2016
I remember trump getting thousands for a rally
I remember Bernie getting thousands for a rally
I remember Hillary getting 15-30 people at an Orlando rally
The people weren't pumped for Hillary even though the media was
As cagey as Bernie is being about abolishing ICE, when push comes to shove he voted against creating it in the first place. Dude needs to stop being wishy washy about this now and get out in front of this and say "I voted against ICE. And I was right. We need to abolish ICE." Because that's what I would do if I was in Bernie's shoes right now.
41 Democratic senators voted to create ICE in the first place including a few of them you guys are big fans of. I think that's the kind of rot that's angering the base and lead to Bernie becoming so popular in the first place. Purging people like that and replacing them with people like Ocasio-Cortez should absolutely be something the democrats should focus on.
41 Democratic senators voted to create ICE in the first place including a few of them you guys are big fans of. I think that's the kind of rot that's angering the base and lead to Bernie becoming so popular in the first place. Purging people like that and replacing them with people like Ocasio-Cortez should absolutely be something the democrats should focus on.
I mean, Bernie's positions on immigration are explicitly Trumpish. Old-school socialist thought often was. Again, I urge people to read Bernie's comments to Ezra Klein on immigration, and ask yourself if they suggest to you a politician who supports restructuring immigration enforcement, or whether they remind you of a different unorthodox politician. This was a major objection I had to him back in 2015.
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation
She was also more popular with the American people and won millions more votes than Trump.
As much as people say she was this or that, and "lost" to Trump, she succeeded in getting more Americans vote for her. It's not her fault we have a dumbass voting system.
I get the electoral college and all, but its fucking incredible we have a system where a person can get less votes and still win, and be seen as a legit president with a mandate, and people don't raise fucking hell over it.
If ever there comes a day when a Republican wins the popular vote but not the presidency, they will fucking flip and change that shit right quick.
Primary them all if you have someone actually better.
Cortez is better. The one primarying Pelosi is a crackpot lawyer who thinks the DNC stole the California primary from Sanders.
Maybe he's not saying it because he doesn't want to do it
His vote in 02 means nothing right now. Others are saying it.
What does Trump call him, "Crazy Bernie"?
Then GOP affiliated firms start bringing up he's Jewish (let's not pretend that it wouldn't be an issue for voters. Romney had hose underwear questions as a Mormon)?
He would have lost.
EDIT:
Then we go with the actual character. He's not likable. He's racially deaf. And his policies are not financially pragmatic.
Then GOP affiliated firms start bringing up he's Jewish (let's not pretend that it wouldn't be an issue for voters. Romney had hose underwear questions as a Mormon)?
He would have lost.
EDIT:
Then we go with the actual character. He's not likable. He's racially deaf. And his policies are not financially pragmatic.
When I read things like this I wonder if I'm living in an alternate reality than everyone else on here. Back in 2016 I saw significantly more hype and excitement for Bernie (at least among millenials/younger people) than I did for Hillary, and that hype and excitement carries on with a lot of the same people to this this day. Say what you want about Bernie, but "unlikeable" isn't the most accurate. I voted for Hillary when it mattered, but voting for her definitely didn't excite me nearly as much as voting for Obama did in '08.
I hope we see a lot more Beto O'Rourkes and Ocasio-Cortezs in the future though, they excite me more than both Bernie and Hillary ever did.
I voted for him in the last primary, and I'll vote for him again if he runs. And yes, whoever the Democrats nominate, I'll vote for in the general election. Sanders or Warren would be ideal.
Yup. But whatever. I really like Bernie and the policies he is pushing for, but however unfair it was I think he had his shot and he's too old now. I would love to see Warren run, and maybe it could even be a cool move to have him as a VP.
But on the other hand it might be better to have him as a Senator and have a VP representing a minority group.
How else are you going to set expectations but to look to recent history, and that is the most recent history we have because 2012 had no primary.
There are always going to be people that change candidates, and it doesn't make any sense to single bernie voters out for that unless there's more context to how he (and apparently 2008 Hillary) is significantly different. I'm trying to find edwards to bush voter polls but I'm not finding anything yet.
Bernie's support is real and you really need to stop denying it. Otherwise he wouldn't be polling so highly in hypothetical presidential match-ups (now, AND during the 2016 election)....unless you think bots have taking over the polling, too.