• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Arkeband

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
7,663
I would love to understand how the fuck anyone thinks Buttigieg has any possible chance of winning in this backwards ass country.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Nice try, but the Horseshoe Theory is not real
But the horseshoe theory of twitter avatars is.
9f6.jpg_large
 

KingK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,856
Just got my text from the Bernie team. Damn they are on it. I'm liking some of his campaign hires too. Those two dudes in charge last time sucked.

I would love to understand how the fuck anyone thinks Buttigieg has any possible chance of winning in this backwards ass country.
I grew up in and around South Bend, it's not a socially liberal place. He still won reelection after coming out with 80% of the vote. I honestly don't think it'll be a huge issue except with people who were always going to vote R anyway.

I never even heard that name until 10 seconds ago. Now I have to Google.
Please do. Look up his interview on Morning Joe from a few days back, it's real good. He got his start in politics writing an essay praising Bernie Sanders back in 2000 when he was 18.
 
Oct 31, 2017
12,085
Most of the country? Weird, last time I checked Clinton won the popular vote.

Technically, most of the country didn't vote for either candidate (she was sub-50%). Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton never won the majority of the country's vote in three elections, interestingly. For Hillary, though, it's worse simply because there wasn't a strong third party candidate as there was in the 90s.

Someone had to get more votes than the other person, but there's a reason she lost beyond the accurate reasons that the national news media made a bigger issue of her emails than they should have and interference from Russia/Wikileaks. Most of the country doesn't like her and hasn't liked her for a long time. Some of it is her fault. Some of it is the right-wing smear campaign.
 

Suzushiiro

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
515
Brooklyn, NY
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing some of the centrists who were lecturing Ilhan Omar about antisemitism last week spend a year+ warning us all about the Russian agent (((Bernard Sanders))) who is once again involved in a grand conspiracy to get Trump elected again.

It's also going to be great fucking fun when he says something even mildly critical of Israel and is accused of being an antisemite himself.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Technically, most of the country didn't vote for either candidate (she was sub-50%). Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton never won the majority of the country's vote in three elections, interestingly. For Hillary, though, it's worse simply because there wasn't a strong third party candidate as there was in the 90s.

Someone had to get more votes than the other person, but there's a reason she lost beyond the accurate reasons that the national news media made a bigger issue of her emails than they should have and interference from Russia/Wikileaks. Most of the country doesn't like her and hasn't liked her for a long time. Some of it is her fault. Some of it is the right-wing smear campaign.
There wasn't a strong, single candidate, but the third party candidates did add up to almost 6%. That's significantly higher than like, Nader in 2000 (in fact I want to say Gary Johnson did better than he did) and a couple points under Perot's 8% in 1996.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,179
There wasn't a strong, single candidate, but the third party candidates did add up to almost 6%. That's significantly higher than like, Nader in 2000 (in fact I want to say Gary Johnson did better than he did) and a couple points under Perot's 8% in 1996.

Considering the major third party candidates were literally the same people as in 2012, I think that reflects more on those voters unwillingness to engage with Trump/Clinton more than the major party candidates being hurt by a unique third party candidate ala Perot in 92.
 

Rune Walsh

Too many boners
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,032
I just got a text message from the Bernie team. They are on their A game already, I'm impressed.

I did too. Told them no thanks and they asked whom I support. I'm not sure what they can glimpse from that data but I'd be curious to see who others support if they voted for him in the primary in last time. I'm personally in favor of Warren but I'd obviously vote for any Democrat for president.
 

Bookman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,228
Hi.
I'm from Sweden and can't claim any deeper insights in American politic but in the news, as it's reported in Sweden, it's astonishing how deeply worrying the Trump administration is. I get that there is 2 side of the story but, just to take a recent exampel, when he held the speech about the national emergency he really looked like a senile old man rambeling about nobel peace price and obama wanting war on nord korea? I would literary be scared as fuck living in America.

When I read the replys in this thread and others I get the feeling that resetera isn't exactly Trump country, quite the opposite. Although I assume that not all that comment are us citizens.

I don't want to offend anyone, neither argue, but I'm genuinely curious about the negativity against Bernie Sanders in this thread. I understand the age argument but as an , a bit uniformed, outside spectator Bernie seems really good? At least if you are a democrat?

Although I'm from Sweden so Bernie would probably not even be considered far left her, moore like in the middle.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Although I'm from Sweden so Bernie would probably not even be considered far left her, moore like in the middle.
Our "left" is your "center" and our "right" is your "far right". We're pretty far behind northern Europe politically speaking.

If your left came here we'd call them commies. In fairness, we call Bernie "commie" as well. Also Warren and sometimes Obama. America has lost the idea of what communism is after the Cold War, it's just used to smear anyone lefter than right wing dudes like Bush.
 
Oct 27, 2017
995


Haven't seen this Nate Silver tweet posted, saying what Bernie supporters knew all along.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ral_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#polls
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/campaign/358599-sanders-wouldve-beat-trump-in-2016-just-ask-trump-pollsters?amp
He beat Hillary in Michigan and would have performed much better in the rust belt and would have thus won the presidency (he only would have had to outperform her by around 70k votes in those 3 states) Nate Silver agréés Bernie would have had better odds
Sanders has historically been the strongest against Trump in match ups. One has to consider the particular strengths of one's opponent.

Sanders is a populist, he has a blunt rhetroical style, and outsider/anti-establishment appeal, all of which help him to poach votes from the sizable contingent of apolitical Trump voters who simply want someone different.

That's the thing people don't understand about swing votes. You don't get swing voters by simply playing the middle and taking weak stances. Sanders is a great example of how one can have fairly purist policies but adopt a different way if talking about them and attract swing voters.
Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren't really Democrats to begin with.

Of course, we know that many Sanders voters did not readily identify with the Democratic Party as of 2016, and Schaffner found that Sanders-Trump voters were even less likely to identify as Democrats. Sanders-Trump voters didn't much approve of Obama either.

In fact, this was true well before 2016. In the VOTER Survey, we know how Sanders-Trump voters voted in 2012, based on an earlier interview in November 2012. Only 35 percent of them reported voting for Obama, compared with 95 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters. In other words, Sanders-Trump voters were predisposed to support Republicans in presidential general elections well before Trump's candidacy.

So the idea that those 20% would have voted for Clinton isn't really realistic since they weren't Democrats to begin with.

Overall, I'm empathetic to your fears that Sanders running may lead to a minority of Sanders primary voters to not vote for the Democratic nominee, but are they rooted in data? Would those voters ever vote for a Democrat that wasn't Sanders? Rather than Sanders siphoning votes away from Democrats, I see it more as Sanders having the capability to siphon votes away from Republicans, since those folks were majority Republican voters prior.

Anyways sorry for a long post. If you have data to show that Sanders to Trump voters would have actually voted for Clinton if Sanders wasn't in the picture, please enlighten me. For now I still think that Sanders isn't doing a great harm just by running and I still think cancelling Sanders and the majority Sanders voters because of this minority isn't productive.
[...]I wish there was some more analysis on this subject, because there are some very interesting points raised. Interesting that voters were more likely to follow their racial biases/beliefs than economic. I know there has been a lot of research done on Trump supporters and their views on race, but not Sanders/Clinton supporters.

My opinion certainly has changed somewhat.
Interesting discussion. I mentioned elsewhere that while Sanders supporters were farther left overall, there were distinct subgroups within his 2016 coalition that were not leftists.

As indicated above (PogChamp: "...Rather than Sanders siphoning votes away from Democrats, I see it more as Sanders having the capability to siphon votes away from Republicans, since those folks were majority Republican voters prior..."), Bernie seems to have had 'crossover' appeal with certain 'non-left' folks, which would have helped him in a general election:
I've mentioned survey results from 2016 that indicated Bernie supporters were farther left (than Hillary's) on race and gender issues, overall (see here); but certainly there were distinct 'subgroups' within Bernie's 2016 'coalition' (for example, the strictly/merely anti-corruption, anti-establishment, Campaign Finance Reform type folks) that were often NOT farther left, on race and gender issues (some were, some weren't).

Some folks cited Bernie's performance with this specific "ideologically diverse" subgroup (the "strictly/merely anti-corruption, anti-establishment, campaign finance reform type folks") as the reason he tended to do better than Hillary in matchups with Trump (see here), which in turn complicated the typical, simplistic portrayal of Sanders as unelectable due to his being too far left...
Some related material based on data from 2016 (we'll have to wait and see if the relevant trends are visible in the data during the upcoming cycle): one / two / three / four
 

Bookman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,228
Our "left" is your "center" and our "right" is your "far right". We're pretty

Well I guess that depends on your political views.
I'm somewhat patriotic (and probably nostalgic) but I really wish that all people would get the same opportunity that I had.
Free university, equal access to healthcare etc. People from other countries seems surprised by the fact that we have free school lunch. As a parent I can trust that my children will get a healthy meal in school etc..
School library's is in the law and so on.
 

Bookman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,228
You can answer my question better than anyone: in Sweden, would Bernie fit better with the swedish Social Democrats or with the actual swedish Left Party?
Dude I'm not an expert but my guess is social democrats but we already have free healthcare and many of the things that I understand Bernie is fighting for. Our "right" party moderaterna isn't against free healthcare and if I had to guess that the level of taxes moderaterna stands for would probably be considered more left than Bernie but it's kind of hard to make a comparison.
 

ebs

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
443
Hi.
I'm from Sweden and can't claim any deeper insights in American politic but in the news, as it's reported in Sweden, it's astonishing how deeply worrying the Trump administration is. I get that there is 2 side of the story but, just to take a recent exampel, when he held the speech about the national emergency he really looked like a senile old man rambeling about nobel peace price and obama wanting war on nord korea? I would literary be scared as fuck living in America.

When I read the replys in this thread and others I get the feeling that resetera isn't exactly Trump country, quite the opposite. Although I assume that not all that comment are us citizens.

I don't want to offend anyone, neither argue, but I'm genuinely curious about the negativity against Bernie Sanders in this thread. I understand the age argument but as an , a bit uniformed, outside spectator Bernie seems really good? At least if you are a democrat?

Although I'm from Sweden so Bernie would probably not even be considered far left her, moore like in the middle.

Most of the negativity is the result of two factors.

1. After Bernie lost the primary there was a small but very vocal part of his base that was adamant the DNC "rigged" the primary for Clinton to win. Obviously this stokes tensions with Clinton supporters.

2. After Hillary lost the election a small but very vocal part of her voter base was looking for anything to blame, as long as they didn't have to admit that Clinton was just a weak candidate and lazy on the campaign trail. This blame generally went two ways: Russia and Bernie.

The Bernie blame is totally unfounded just like the claim the DNC rigged the primary. And it's pretty much stoked by numbers without context. You've probably seen blame fall on the Bernie to Trump voters, but you likely haven't heard that the number of Bernie supporters who went to vote Trumo is about half the total Clinton voters that went to vote McCain in 2008. There's always going to be some switching and historically speaking this number was actually record low.

There was also just a truckload of misinformation propelled by some diehard Bernie supporters about the "rigged" primary which in the end is no better than your usual run of the mill conspiracies or context hiding and so I won't go into the details.

In the end people just don't want to admit their candidate was at fault and that's caused endless arguments, it also doesn't help that the misinformation on the Clinton side was regularly backed by moderation on Neogaf
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I'm somewhat patriotic (and probably nostalgic) but I really wish that all people would get the same opportunity that I had.
Free university, equal access to healthcare etc.
Giving "opportunity to everyone" is considered "socialism" here, and not in a positive sense. Our political culture is really poisoned in this respect. There's a lot of emphasis on "personal responsibility" but very few consideration of the context with which that responsibility manifests (whether you're born poor or rich changes what "responsible" means to you). "Personal responsibility" ha been the go-to mantra to resist confronting the necessity of social policy reform in the US. The fact that it's reaching a breaking point and that it can't be ignored or papered over anymore is what is giving Bernie his opportunity to be in the spotlight.

And what ebs said. There's a lot more in this thread than just whether or not people like Bernie. There's leftover sentiment from 2016, it's not easy to grasp unless you were following American politics in that time frame.
 

SolarPowered

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,211
Not a chance. Biden already let Obama talk him out of running once, if he didn't he'd likely be president right now. And with him currently topping every poll before even announcing his candidacy? He's running.
Hillary would have wiped the floor with him. If anything he probably would stolen enough support from Hillary to make it possible for Bernie to win even more states during the primary (maybe Ohio, Pennsylvania and a couple of deep south states).
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Hillary would have wiped the floor with him. If anything he probably would stolen enough support from Hillary to make it possible for Bernie to win even more states during the primary (maybe Ohio, Pennsylvania and a couple of deep south states).
Biden would have hurt both by siphoning different types of voters, Hillary's more moderate Dems. and Bernie's socially conservative Is.
 

Bookman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,228
I don't want to step on someones toes here. We are all products of beeing raised during a particular time and values.
"Commies" don't have the same stigmata here (but it still would be political suicide to be one) . Sweden in the 80 at least wasn't that USA friendly as people probably think.

When I was a kid (in the 80s) playing megaman and watching turtles our teacher told us that in Usa people was homeless and lived on the street. I couldn't believe it. Im from northern Sweden so it's pretty cold here, ill figured people would freeze to death. We watched our "president" or stadsminister said this in the debates (https://youtu.be/6xhvUlYCH24)

As a kid I though on us like some third world country, at least until holywood showed a different side.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
As a kid I though on us like some third world country, at least until holywood showed a different side.
This is a manufactured image. The truth is, both your teachers were sort of right (even if they didn't know it) and Hollywood is sort of right. We have uber rich and uber poor. Homeless people freeze to death in the winter even as they live in some of the richest cities in the world (SF, NYC, etc). The thing that makes this contradiction possible is inequality, and the distribution of wealth in the US. We lack the kind of aggressive taxation schemas of northern Europe, and culturally we consider any kind of "tax" an infringement of our rights whereas human suffering is not an infringement of our rights, only a problem of character. The American idea is: "If you're suffering, it's because you're not working hard enough."
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
Oct 27, 2017
11,512
Bandung Indonesia
Money proves nothing, sure it's good to have but he's going to have a harder road ahead then against Hillary. It remains to be seen the he maintain that momentum with revenue streams, as well.
.

No it doesn't mean "nothing". At the very least it proves that there are still a lot of people feeling positive about the idea that he's running again for presidency, and that currently he's commanding a lot of attention and also one of the frontrunner candidate from the Democratic party. So yes, it does prove "something"
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
No it doesn't mean "nothing". At the very least it proves that there are still a lot of people feeling positive about the idea that he's running again for presidency, and that currently he's commanding a lot of attention and also one of the frontrunner candidate from the Democratic party. So yes, it does prove "something"

Ok, I can agree with that.
 
Oct 31, 2017
12,085
There wasn't a strong, single candidate, but the third party candidates did add up to almost 6%. That's significantly higher than like, Nader in 2000 (in fact I want to say Gary Johnson did better than he did) and a couple points under Perot's 8% in 1996.

There are always multiple third party candidates; Ross Perot was a much stronger one. Obama won a majority of the vote despite a billion third party candidates in large part because he was a better campaigner and better candidate.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,176
This is a manufactured image. The truth is, both your teachers were sort of right (even if they didn't know it) and Hollywood is sort of right. We have uber rich and uber poor. Homeless people freeze to death in the winter even as they live in some of the richest cities in the world (SF, NYC, etc). The thing that makes this contradiction possible is inequality, and the distribution of wealth in the US. We lack the kind of aggressive taxation schemas of northern Europe, and culturally we consider any kind of "tax" an infringement of our rights whereas human suffering is not an infringement of our rights, only a problem of character. The American idea is: "If you're suffering, it's because you're not working hard enough."

The middle class in America is shrinking fast. The economic disparity is indeed more comparable to third world countries, but Americans don't view it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.