I would love to understand how the fuck anyone thinks Buttigieg has any possible chance of winning in this backwards ass country.
I see, so voting for Sanders = you "don't want to actually support women's equality."
Riveting commentary!
I was a huge fan of Marcotte back in the Pandagon days, but at some point I realized what a mean-spirited hateful and condescending person she actually is.
But the horseshoe theory of twitter avatars is.
HAHAH oh shit PanickyFool Let us know if you're okay (and about how the Democrats are to blame for the housing crisis in California this week)
I'll admit I used Atsuko calling Diana a bourgeois as a facebook cover once
I... I want to deny this, but I can't.
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 would love to understand how the fuck anyone thinks Buttigieg has any possible chance of winning in this backwards ass country.
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.I never even heard that name until 10 seconds ago. Now I have to Google.
Most of the country? Weird, last time I checked Clinton won the popular vote.
Where does deejay fall in this?
This is shockingly accurate
Politically apathetic?
Bitch that's a Rothschild. Only phliosophy I got is green.HAHAH oh shit @PanickyFool Let us know if you're okay (and about how the Democrats are to blame for the housing crisis in California this week)
I dunno. Being a minority and voting to get jeff denham drop kicked brougjt a smile to my face.
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.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.
I just got a text message from the Bernie team. They are on their A game already, I'm impressed.
Our "left" is your "center" and our "right" is your "far right". We're pretty far behind northern Europe politically speaking.Although I'm from Sweden so Bernie would probably not even be considered far left her, moore like in the middle.
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?Although I'm from Sweden so Bernie would probably not even be considered far left her, moore like in the middle.
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.
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.[...]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.
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 / fourI'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...
Our "left" is your "center" and our "right" is your "far right". We're pretty
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.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?
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.
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.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.
Was watching his 2016 campaign video again. Good stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSRUmRYrRLY
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).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.
Biden would have hurt both by siphoning different types of voters, Hillary's more moderate Dems. and Bernie's socially conservative Is.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).
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."As a kid I though on us like some third world country, at least until holywood showed a different side.
Welcome to the club. Take your Bernie2020 shirt and head to the nearest open computer station to post about him on one of our dummy Twitter accounts.Just donated $27.
I'm white and well off now y'all!
No but seriously, felt good donating.
Biden would have hurt both by siphoning different types of voters, Hillary's more moderate Dems. and Bernie's socially conservative Is.
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"
I didn't want to call Deejay anime because you might not like anime all that much but I guess you'll have to live with being extreme left anime now.I dunno. Being a minority and voting to get jeff denham drop kicked brougjt a smile to my face.
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.
Booker might be the the dark horse.i'm pretty surprised to see so many views for booker. i was under the impression he wasn't really going to be much of a contender? but that number is not bad for him
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."
Internationale choir performance but it's just a bunch of octogenarians and AOC supporters (with a surprise visit from AOC herself).