What you get when you combine a social conservative with someone with economically "left" views is someone like Steve Bannon.
-
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.
Bernie really out here cutting ads with Joe Rogan's endorsement (SEE STAFF POST)
- Thread starter GrapeApes
- Start date
- Status
You know this fits the stereotype of "You liberals call everyone a Nazi!" right? I bet you there's a lot of apolitical viewers who can easily become progerssive with just a little bit of effort and outreach.
But not if your outreach only involves convincing them on economics and never pushes back on the bigotry.
I wont deny one of Bernie's weaknesses is he frames everything in terms of Healthcare and Economics, but I'd rather we at least try to outreach more instead of just shrinking further and further inward.
I've been extremely online for a few years now and this is the first time I'm getting introduced to socially conservative and economically 'left' and I honestly have no idea what the heck that is.
Leftists who are "anti-identity politics". That's who that is in the context of this discussion. Economics does not cause bigotry. Bigotry causes bigotry. They are two very separate things. If you don't understand how this combo is possible - it's simple, they want economic support for themselves or their in-group and either don't care if it's denied to others or people outside that group, or actively want that to happen.
This survey data found here pops up in other countries as well with that curving arc from the lower left through the upper left to the upper right. It isn't unique to us. https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
The political compass you see in schools is milquetoast bullshit because they don't want to touch social issues in a classroom. This is what the actual political compass looks like. And yes, this is why the Dems paid an enormous price for passing civil rights, because there were way more racist white voters than GOP->Dem black voter converts.
I mean isn't that the kind of attacks Reagan used against groups like Welfare Queens and the like. Its not a new phenomenon its just the idea of 'I got mine, fuck you.' and that's definitely not how the democratic left operates. (Or at least as far as the DSA and associated branches do). I can't commit to a discussion (Though perhaps we can and obviously not here since its kind of a derail). Def send me a DM.
The left can try and pull these voters in and also push back on their bigotry. You can give them a left message while also saying your views on xyz are wrong.
No one i know would try to pull these voters in and just ignore their racism,bigotry who ever is doing that isn't actually on the left.
No one i know would try to pull these voters in and just ignore their racism,bigotry who ever is doing that isn't actually on the left.
This is good news and potentially able to convert a lot of otherwise apolitical and ignorant people towards the left. Just take a look at the Joe Rogan interview with Bernie Sanders and you'll see a ton of comments from people who were convinced Bernie was the devil but changed their mind after hearing him speak. These are the types of people that can be potentially reached and educated on not just economic issues, but also social issues.
Reagan was even more than this, he wouldn't even go to his friend's funeral when he found out he was gay. He was an even bigger piece of shit than Trump in my eyes because of what he did to the Overton window in this country.
So tons of commenters on Rogan's YouTube channel, people that have access to the Internet and could possibly watch just one Democratic debate, don't change their minds until Bernie goes on one particular podcast? I guess I'm just flabbergasted as to this is what it takes. Bernie's repeated his stump speech a thousand times, I'm sure you can find dozens of examples of this on YouTube alone. How lazy are these people?
Yes, apparently politics is also about strategy...I mean you have this whole discourse about 'electibility'...this acts to increase Sanders potential voter base. It is not like Sanders is modifying his policies to appeal to biggots. He is the least likely of the candidates to do so. Coupled with that, there are double standards involved, since many of the other candidates are endorsed by problematic people. Of course there has got to be a cut off point, but I think Rogan, despite my issues with some of his views, tends to at least broaden the exposure of his audience by inviting people across the social and political spectrum. He is certainly problematic in some ways, partly because he seems more unfiltered.
Eeyore: no offence, but that is seems a bit naive. There are probably numerous issues you were exposed to over the years that affected you on some level, but didn't lead you to change your mind until the right 'cue' came along. Its basic psychology.
Yes that's right, because most people online just stick to their own bubbles and don't like to go out of their way to challenge the way they think. When someone like Bernie Sanders is introduced to them by somebody that they already watch, somebody that they feel comfortable with and trust (Joe Rogan), then it has the potential to sway them. Of course, the flipside of this is that Joe Rogan helped introduce a lot of people to the likes of Steven Crowder and Milo, so it's a double edged sword, but the hope is that more people are converted to the left overall, particularly after Rogan's endorsement.
I feel like you learn that campaigns start off more extreme in their political leanings and start moving closer to the center as it moves closer to election time in your first semester of Government class in university.
We literally had an entire lecture dedicated to that. Bernie is currently a frontrunner and needs to start appealing to some centrists to win the election.
Joe Rogan is awful, but as has been stated as nauseum, his audience is impressionable and we'd rather them voting for Bernie than Trump.
Now of course if Biden wins the primary then that's a different story....
But that brings me to another point, arguably the most most moderate candidate is leading the polls. That alone shows you the power of the moderate vote.
We literally had an entire lecture dedicated to that. Bernie is currently a frontrunner and needs to start appealing to some centrists to win the election.
Joe Rogan is awful, but as has been stated as nauseum, his audience is impressionable and we'd rather them voting for Bernie than Trump.
Now of course if Biden wins the primary then that's a different story....
But that brings me to another point, arguably the most most moderate candidate is leading the polls. That alone shows you the power of the moderate vote.
I dislike Rogan, but his endorsement will do more good than harm. Making his audience itch closer towards his policy positions is a good thing.
The endorsement is a net positive but if in defense of it you're minimizing legit criticism of Bernie's camp parading it around you're simply dogmatic.
And given the arguments tossed around for months, probably a good for nothing hypocrite.
And given the arguments tossed around for months, probably a good for nothing hypocrite.
Beautiful.
I don't think there is any legit criticism of Bernie "parading it around." It's not an endorsement of Joe Rogan, the endorsement is pointing in the other direction. If Mitch McConnell himself endorsed Bernie I would expect him to "parade it around." This is a fucking election.
All kinds of scum endorsed Hillary last cycle and I didn't give her an ounce of grief about it. I'm not about to start now.
When leftists are anti-identity politics, realize that many of them have a different definition to identity politics than you do. It's similar to racism and systematic racism discussions that happen on this forum. People operate under different definitions and that leads to disagreement. One of the common sentiments and disagreements is the argument "you can't be racist towards white people." One section of this forum operates under the idea that racism is showing prejudice based on color. My older brother and little brother always run into these same arguments when in actuality they don't disagree with each other at all. I always have to remind them about this fact. Both are in agreement with systematic racism and where the power is, and where justice needs to happen.
Leftists aren't anti-identity politics, they're against using identity to invalidate arguments. There are people who seriously think Bernie shouldn't run for president because he's a straight white man. That's what they don't like. What they like is that despite Bernie being a straight white man, Bernie is still fighting for policies that help decrease the power of the straight white man the most. What matters to them is what policies best help minorities. That's not anti-identity politics. If they ever say they're against identity politics, they're not operating under the same definition that you use. If identity politics is the definition I think you're using, then they're in complete agreement with you.
Those same people you think are anti-identity politics will point out how racist the criminal justice system is for example. If they were against identity politics they wouldn't point these things out.
But we've had this discussion before and you continue to reiterate this view. I have no idea why. You know damn well Bernie's policies and speeches reflect identity politics. And as I've stated earlier, Bernie's policies are the best policies that drive power away from the straight white men the most. You just disregard the intersectionality of his policies and instead act as if his policies aren't also crucial in directing the power away from straight white men.
No, they don't. That's the mistake you're making. It's the exact same definition Fox News uses.
And it's hilarious to say they're "against using identity to invalidate arguments" when you have some of those people attempting to do exactly that in this thread.
I'm not worried about who Joe is endorsing. I'm worried about Bernie celebrating Mr. Planet of the Apes, the podcaster. His audience is going to know who he's voting for regardless. On the other hand, Mitch is a major political figure that subverts the party structure. Your gymnastics don't really follow.
The company you keep reflects on you. This is an unforced error that is potentially alienting and even hurtful. Will it ultimately have a positive outcome? Likely. Does that negate criticism? No.
Do you usually run your mouth like this without doing a quick Google to make sure you aren't talking a bunch of nonsense? Because if so I would reconsider that habit.
The only gymnastics I see is whatever this attempt is to say Mitch "subverts the party structure" and therefore we shouldn't compare how heinous it is to get an endorsement from him and broadcast it vs. how heinous it is when it's Rogan.
I know my fucking shit. Bernie's coalition is not majority non-white. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that, and this author's complete lack of understanding of statistics where he tries to argue about Bernie's base composition using.... the relative popularity between Bernie and Biden among racial groups in the electorate as a whole doesn't change that.
You keep saying this is about Bernie getting an endorsement from said person when I've clarified twice that it isnt. My problem is with Bernie parading it.
And yeah it's obviously different. Mitch is an elected official and majority leader of senate in the opposite party. A hypothetic endorsement has so many more professional dynamics. Mitch is a vital gear in how our country is run. Joe's endorsement is largely personal.
And my problem wasn't with gymnastics but that yours didn't congrue.
Last edited:
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm assuming you're talking about the leftists with the biggest platforms on the internet. I'm not making a mistake if that's who you're talking about. They always bring up identity politics although they don't call it that, because they don't have the same definition that you use. If they didn't think about it they wouldn't be bringing up numerous examples of minorities suffering the most through systematic racism, bigotry, etc...
Again, the difference is that they recognize the intersectionality of economic policies in driving away power from the straight white man.
There is no escaping this. Which platform is more progressive than Bernie's in this instance? Which set of policies (from the dem candidates) best bring power towards minorities? Who gets affected by college debt the most (%)? People of color. Who gets affected by climate change the most? People of color. Who gets destroyed by the racist drug laws? People of color. I can go on and on.
And if that's not enough, Bernie is still speaking on identity politics (despite what leftists think of the definition) other than economic policy.
I'm sitting here still wondering why I bothered to catch up with this steaming pile of a thread, but it was worth it for this line.
Now you're out here trying to Principal Skinner a Vice article, but it's not the children who are wrong.
If you're looking for the candidates with majority-white coalitions, that would be Mayo Pete and Warren.
Edit: Thanks KidAAlbum
Do you actually think says that Bernie's coalition is majority non-white? Do you really not understand that you need to multiply those percentages by the proportion of the democratic primary electorate they represent to actually determine the composition of his share of the electorate?
And that goes for you too.
Kirblar, it's obviously true. That's my point — it's true of literally every single candidate. Half of all people are women so obviously unless your support is wildly tilted by gender more than half of your supporters will be women and people of color. It's a union of sets. That's why a majority of Donald Trump's support is women and people of color. This is another Bruenig special, actually.
The person I was responding to was being deliberately disingenuous by bringing it up as though it is a meaningful statement when he knows perfectly well it isn't. Just more dishonesty.
I wasn't talking about the gender thing, that's going to be true of most Dem candidates and Bernie's 2016 candidacy was male skewed relative to the party as a whole, I haven't seen any data on gender for this cycle actually. But I've seen tons of polling on Bernie's racial breakdowns and they don't support that part of the claim!
It sucks that Joe Rogan is as popular and normalized as he is. Bernie's campaign using his endorsement doesn't exactly help. Then again, I remember when Bernie and other candidates went on Fox News. There's something to be said about getting these ideas out there in whatever way you can, so they can reach as many ears as possible.
I'm not defending Rogan but his popularity goes way beyond nazis. I live in a very liberal part of California and have met many people who call themselves liberal and vote democrat down the line and will publicly admit they listen to him. I wouldn't praise any of them as deep thinkers but they exist. This is great for Bernie.
If that's how it's being used it's an even more ridiculous non-sequitur line than I thought it was for the reasons you laid out.
edit: the math on the racial composition using Brookings' estimates of Dems' primary composition for the values, since I already did it and might as well post it-https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-2018-primaries-project-the-demographics-of-primary-voters/
kirblar is correct to observe that this graph doesn't show what you claim it does. Bernie has strong nonwhite support but that doesn't mean his supporters are majority people of color. Obviously this would be very unlikely to be true of any candidate, since white people are 70% or so of the electorate.
Never watched Joe Rogan before, but putting his and Sanders name in the search bar and opening the 1st small clip, not even the actual full interview, the first thing I see is this:
Seems like an average example of the viewership base and the comment got easy 2.4k likes in a much smaller in views upload, so I'd like to believe the whole thing is a huge benefit to Sanders' campaign and potential Democratic win in the upcoming elections if people who only watch Joe Rogan or even worse podcasts/news sources actually finally see what Sanders is about from his own words, not through Fox News/3rd party interpretation.
The ad thing is more questionable though and understandable that some people would critcize it. But as long as the policy itself doesn't change, I'd have been glad for more votes, wherever they are coming from if I were an US Citizen. Too bad there's no such thing as choice in elections at all in my country.
Seems like an average example of the viewership base and the comment got easy 2.4k likes in a much smaller in views upload, so I'd like to believe the whole thing is a huge benefit to Sanders' campaign and potential Democratic win in the upcoming elections if people who only watch Joe Rogan or even worse podcasts/news sources actually finally see what Sanders is about from his own words, not through Fox News/3rd party interpretation.
The ad thing is more questionable though and understandable that some people would critcize it. But as long as the policy itself doesn't change, I'd have been glad for more votes, wherever they are coming from if I were an US Citizen. Too bad there's no such thing as choice in elections at all in my country.
this is a surprisingly smug post from somebody who appears to not actually know what the word "majority" means
There's nothing that Joe Rogan is normalising that Trump isn't doing 10 fold, that's the bigger picture here. All this is completely moot if Trump wins the presidency again. American is already very racist and bigotted the stats speak for themselves. You can't do anything about that without being in power.
That's not to say Joe Rogan support is some magic bullet or will even any sort of affect at in securing such a win, it's highly likely he won't and may prove harmful. The thing is noone knows the future only hindsight is 20/20 politicians are simply trying to gather support that they think will help them win and the main battle ground for this election is the rust belt states that voted for racist Trump. There's no point in ignoring the fact that you have to win over people in those states to win and the margins can be very thin. It's fucked up for marginalised people but those are facts of the matter. It's how that stupid election system was designed.
What are these numbers?
See page 109:
The correct white number is 12%
The correct black number is also 12%
The Hispanic number is 21%, I guess you're not even counting that.
The "Other" category is 18%
Using Hispanic or Other as "Nonwhite" here? I'm not sure what to do, so I'll leave it at .21 to just illustrate the black/white balance:
White = 54.6 x .12 = 6.552
Black = 24.1 x .12 = 2.892
Nonwhite = 21.3 x .21 = 4.473
Total = 13.917
White%/Total = 6.552/13.917 = 47%
Now have a seat.
I like that you got partway through, realized you didn't understand what was going on, and just kept going and figured nobody would notice
why don't you explain carefully in your own words what you think you're doing here
... Hispanics are 9% of the electorate. I assumed that the initial chart had put all non-white/black people into one category. But you kind of missed something important on page 109. They provided the actual vote tallies from the survey next to the percentages.
edit: this isn't even the same data set!
Last edited:
The Economist tracker in your first link shows that Sanders has more support from men than women, FYI.
The Vox article cites a Morning Consult poll by someone who failed statistics, as their race demographics add up to 110%. For example it claims the sample was 81% white, when it was actually 73%. It then uses an online Harris Poll. Online polls are consistently proven to be unreliable bordering on outright false. Its also from March of 2019, before Elizabeth Warren had a strong surge forward, which she is still largely holding on to, and by the Economist tracker did so with people under 44 and a lean towards women supporters (so probably straight out of Sanders' base).
The phrase "Bernie Bro" also came from the 2016 election, one where Sanders went from relative unknown to a national political figure. His demographics of support rose everywhere, but per this YouGov polling trend line:
His biggest direct takeaway from Clinton was with white people, namely white people under 44. This is the Democratic party so the majority of voters, period, are non-white males. He did well with non-white people under 44 and that has carried into the 2020 election where the white vote has been chopped up among a wide array of alternatives. Going by the Economist that looks like a lot of white women lost to Warren, white people in general to Pete, and white men to Yang (I'd guess Bloomberg but we don't have ethnicity based polling that includes him) where if we were to graft Biden into the "HIllary/establishment" role has seen much of the same drop to the same people.
This is also a reductive way to look back at 2016, as the 2016 Sanders campaign DID very much platform economic reductivism white males, especially early on. The "Bernie Bro" was very much a thing. You can follow the trendline above to see that his first big jump was with whites under 44. It wasn't until the back half that he really got moving with non-whites.
This should be taken as a positive, not a negative, as it shows that the Sanders campaign was at least somewhat successful in countering the early trend of white males taking hold of his support narrative. Thats continued into 2020 and he does now have one of the most diverse coalitions around, and is the only candidate who even merits consideration against Biden in southern states.
You should give a link to the source because if the source on the bottom of the graph is correct that would make it this poll here, presumably.
That poll didn't ask any questions about race or ethnicity, instead from the survey's methodology:
Results are also weighted match the demographic makeup of the population by sex, region, age, education and race/ethnicity according to the latest Current Population Survey Social and Economic Supplement.
So it has zero reason to be making race based comparisons, but does in second stage anlysis. This methodology appears to be the standard for the Washington Post-ABC poll ran by Abt Associates on their behalf.
As a disclaimer for everyone who doesn't want to click through and look at the methods, this is an exit polling study done from '14 to '18 where surveyors noted ethnicity and gender of all people asked to participate, even if declined, so they're introducing a larger total sample on race/ethnicity than the respondents and extrapolating support as consistent throughout these groups.
As exit polling lands somewhere between direct call polling and online polling in real world accuracy, adding this additional component under the assumption that primary supporters would decline at an identical rate across candidate support, this should probably be taken with a healthy bit of scepticism.
Check your sources/polls people. When you just trust infographics and charts without verifying the math you tacitly accept shitty polling and misinformation.
Last edited:
Where is the belief that this is going to happen coming from? Is Rogan doing anything more than just offering an endorsement? He's always been soft on Bernie, so I don't see how that's going to lead to de-radicalizing especially when he'll still feature people who contributed to that radicalization in the first place.
- Status